I've added it to the end of the Mk50 thread, although I would guess that it is at risk of being "tidied up" out of there.

I thought Fisky was making many cracks last night which were very Tillman-esque. I enjoyed it too.

I cannot believe the power of tribalism at Catallaxy - "So, his guest posts contained whole slabs of lightly disguised reworkings of paragraphs written by other people on the net - including Stratfor which makes money from its analysis - and he accepted praise from Catallaxy readers who thought he was a really good analyst and writer. I mean - so what you Leftist moron??"

That's odd: dd, who came out strongly in favour of removing Mk50's posts last night, made a short critical comment of Sinclair this evening (after surveying what had gone on today) but it has now been removed at his request, apparently.

So now we have a situation with 3 posts of Mk50, only one of which contains a note warning readers of the "similarity" with its clear source material. The two earlier posts have no such warning, and much of the material in the comments thread of the latest post which shows how they plagiarise, have been removed.

So this unofficial blog "code of ethics", which is about not covering up your past errors, can be used to allow extensively plagiarised material to remain on your site with no acknowldegement ever that the site owner has discovered the plagiarism?

That would be a complete misuse of the blogging ethics idea: the interests of acknowledging someone else's work surely has to trump the idea that you don't cover up errors in what you post.

So, no, while ever MK50's previous posts remain with no indication on the blog as to extensive parts of plagarism, it is Sinclair's fault.